Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25386466›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2014

Conducting record review studies in clinical practice.

Siddharth Sarkar, Divya Seshadri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Dementia prevalence and risk factors in people with and without HIV in Malawi: A medical record review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Siddharth SarkarSenior Resident, Department of Psychiatry, JIPMER , Puducherry, India .
Divya SeshadriConsultant Dermatologist, Apollo FirstMed Hospital , Kilpauk, Chennai, India .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical record review or chart review is a previously recorded data to answer clinical queries. Such a study can be used to answer specific clinical questions in a relatively easy and less resource intensive manner. But these studies may be constrained by the limited information retrievable and inadequacy of records. Various types of data sources may be available for conducting such reviews (like case charts, computerized registries, etc), each with specific strengths and weaknesses. The procedure usually consists of drawing up the research question, identifying the appropriate data source, devising a data extraction plan, extracting the data, checking for errors, data analysis, and appropriate archiving and dissemination of the findings. The ethical aspects in such studies primarily pertain to issues of informed consent and confidentiality. This paper provides a broad overview of how to go about a clinical record review, and serves as a ready reference for those who would like to undertake such record reviews.

Indexed as

Chart reviewEthical issuesMethodologyProcedureRecord review

Identifiers

PMID25386466
PMCPMC4225918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.